Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DigiRhet.org
231
(specifically focusing on race, class, and economies, and also on dis/abilities
and usability); researching the histories of Internet economies; exploring the
dynamics of digital ownership and issues of authoring, authority, and intel-
lectual property in computer-mediated, networked spaces; exploring digital
culture jamming 1 and internetworked politics; examining issues of digital
identity (including emphases on gender and online communities); exploring
digital visual rhetorics; examining new media; and thinking about cyborg,
biotech, and digital bodies. Course topics and readings were designed to
equip students to
232 pedagogy
That digital technologies have proliferated in our society is not sur-
prising, given the race to conquer technology-related media and markets; they
are obvious, for instance, in the yearly profits of cellular service providers,
and in the competition within the Internet service provider (ISP) market. In
our classrooms and at our institutions, our friends and colleagues work — and,
at times, struggle — to keep up with the tools available, to integrate digital
technologies into their writing classrooms, and to gain access to the means
and to the professional development required to teach in digital spaces. Our
departments and colleges struggle to renew outdated tenure and promotion
materials to recognize digital work. The programs of our conferences reveal
a rise in sessions, panels, and featured speakers addressing issues of multi-
media literacies, new media, digital technologies, and more. The tables of
contents of certain journals reflect a space being crafted through the absence
of certain topics and technologies to actually resist digital technologies and
to avoid theorizing and researching their uses, their roles in our classrooms,
and the ways in which they shape our practices.
The recommendations of educational organizations such as the Con-
ference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), the National
Council for Teachers of English (NCTE), and the American Library Asso-
ciation (ALA) include language that reflects the need to teach and encour-
age students to gain technological literacy. The CCCC “Position Statement
on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments”
(2004: n.p.) calls attention to the fact that “classes and programs in writing
require that students compose digitally”; the resolution continues to describe
the ways in which writing changes shape in digital spaces. The resolution
addresses the ways in which some of our assumptions and practices of writ-
ing don’t change shape in digital environments, but also calls attention to the
multiple and extended facets that require our attention when we ask students
to compose with computers and across networks (for example, economic and
cultural barriers must be addressed, access must be assured). In addition, in
the “Informational Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,”
the ALA (2000: n.p.) identifies informational literacy as crucial to today’s
“environment of rapid technological change and proliferating information
resources.” In these standards, the ALA acknowledges that informational
literacy and information technology are inseparable, and that, along with
acquiring technological skills needed to use technology, technological “flu-
ency” requires that the information-literate person have a “deep understand-
ing of technology.”
234 pedagogy
continents). Rather, Gates was imagining a soon-to-become-real world of
“everyone, anytime, anywhere” use of digital technologies — technologies
connected in robust ways to one another, allowing users to connect across
time, place, space, and medium. Gates noted:
We live in an age where voice, data, and video are just bits, ones and zeros to
be pushed down the broadest pipe or around the most accommodating slice of
spectrum. Bits are agnostic. They don’t care how they get where they’re going — only
that they arrive in the right order and at the right moment. The ubiquity of bits is
already empowering the kind of hybridization that most people have envisioned
for consumer electronics these past two decades — multifunctional devices such as
modern PCs, WebTV, cable modems, and smart phones.
236 pedagogy
student to record notes and thoughts as she commuted to campus, which she
could then connect to her computer to transcribe her voice to text notes with
the software that came with the recorder; a networked PlayStation console
with a headset so that geographically distant players could not only compete
against one another online but also speak to each other while gaming; a
grocery store keychain card, which promised access to savings and specials
but which students recognized quite quickly as a tracking device to monitor
purchases; a USB drive that worked as a portable miniature hard drive and
virtually replaced all other media (e.g., floppy disks, CDs); and digital cable
and TiVo, which several students had in their homes. The infiltration of these
different technologies in students’ lives varied greatly; for instance, when the
student who brought in her USB drive to show and talk about separated it
from her keychain and held it in the air, at least ten other students immedi-
ately grabbed their keychains or dug in their bags to show their own USB
drives and talk about common practices, different uses, storage capacities,
cost, and so on.
When we considered the ways in which these technologies interpel-
late us — as viewers, users, consumers, and writers — and interrogated the
ways in which these devices play a rhetorical role in our lives, many among
us were quick to note the ways in which instant-messaging technologies, for
instance, alter language patterns and writing processes. Others argued that
text messaging via cell phone changes the ways in which we communicate
and even the ways in which we use our hands. Students debated whether
being able to code-switch relatively seamlessly from oral speech, for instance,
to academic written English to text messaging was merely code-switching
or actually bilingualism. Students negotiated whether being able to read
code and metatags buried underneath, within, and across devices and digital
spaces was a literacy practice or constituted its own semiotic shift. Students
also raised the point that compatibility issues become literacy issues as cer-
tain devices talk to one another, yet other devices remain isolated, leaving
users disconnected and voiceless.
It should be clear from the tone and tenor of Gates’s article, by the
rich list we constructed, and by the emergent technologies that continue to
become very real possibilities for our cars, our homes, our offices, our class-
rooms, and other facets of our lives that computers and other digital devices
are not just tools for writing and communication.4 It should also be clear
from the discussion above that the dynamics of reading, writing, production,
and distribution are fairly rapidly shifting. Lester Faigley (1997: 34), in his
chair’s address at the 1997 Conference on College Composition and Com-
238 pedagogy
roots student organization MSU Students for Economic Justice transitioned
the distribution of its writings from e-mail and print flyers to include the
additional publishing element of a Web-based content management system
(CMS) of participatory publishing, members learned that the new system of
archiving and delivering writing lends itself well to independent media (see
www.msusej.org). The members of the organization use the system to post
media alerts, share draft news releases, and distribute other documents out-
side of and to traditional news outlets. The system not only supports open,
shared structures of authoring but has also productively changed the way the
group promotes and distributes information on time-sensitive activist issues
and campaigns.
Martine Rife, a digital rhetoric and professional writing PhD student
whose MA thesis analyzes black-and-white family photographs from the
early 1900s, revised her online portfolio to serve as an identity anchor to her
scholarly work. In her online revisions, she threaded a professional identity
through her Web space by linking the visual and digital to the traditional
and historical, by incorporating black-and-white 1940s photographs, along
with new Courier fonts to suggest old-fashioned “typewriter” text. Another
student in the class, Angela Haas, focused her final class project on writing
into and across digital spaces, through the creation of Native Web: Making
the Net More Native to American Indians, a project designed to illustrate that
although American Indians are typically absent from the national discourse
on digital literacy, they have the ability to shape the culture of the Web and
the evolving definition of digital literacy in meaningful ways. The site offers a
counterhegemonic online presence of and for American Indians, as American
Indians have historically been absent from government and other nationwide
surveys on the digital access and online pursuits of Americans. The site also
offers American Indians skeptical of technology and its presence in their own
lives a sense of how other American Indians have appropriated the technol-
ogy to preserve their cultures, languages, memories, and histories — and to
provide “outsiders” with accurate, respectful, and responsible digital rep-
resentations of their cultures from which others can learn about indigenous
peoples.
For many modes and spaces — such as in the examples above — writers
create documents and craft texts that draw upon multiple media elements and
that require them to attend to the possibilities and limitations of the spaces in
which they publish and distribute their work. Writers quickly find that writ-
ing for and reading on screens, for instance, is very different than writing for
and reading on paper. And screens certainly vary — the screen of a cell phone
240 pedagogy
ing requires a deep attention to context, audience, and meaning-making
across the multiple tools and media available to us as writers. Scott DeWitt
(in Grabill and DeVoss 2001) describes composing in digital spaces with mul-
tiple media as having to “do with using a variety of technologies . . . computer
and digital-based technologies to create very rich and layered texts, texts that
aren’t flat texts . . . but incorporate graphics and film and sound and photog-
raphy.” This type of writing clearly collides complex technologies and tools.
The processes of filling the space of a screen are quite different than the ways
we traditionally fill the space of a page. “Computer” and “human” languages
work apart and come together. Writing intersects with software interfaces, file
formats, and file compression (see, for instance, Kress 1998, 1999; Wysocki
1998, 2001; Cope and Kalantzis 2000; Hocks 2003; Hocks and Kendrick
2003; Manovich 2003; Ulmer 2003; Wardrip-Fruin and Montfort 2003).
Digital Rhetoric
As individuals and as educators, we have a responsibility to understand the
power of purposeful discourse — particularly in public digital spaces — and
the ways it can either be used for democratic, socially responsible ends, or
used to marginalize and colonize. As Porter (2002) and others have noted,
many writing technologies have altered and, at times, streamlined the writing
process. Only a few writing technologies, however, have had truly dramatic
social impact. The printing press is one; the networked computer is another.
The convergence of digital tools is yet another that we will witness unfold-
ing in the coming years. It is crucial that we are equipped to chronicle, to
research, and to interrogate these technologies for the ways in which they
alter the landscape of our pedagogy, our approaches to research, and our
conceptions of how individuals write and publish together. As Johndan John-
son-Eilola (1998: 17) has argued, we live, are composed, and compose “at the
nexus connecting an apparently infinite number of social and technological
forces of varying weights, strengths, and directions.” Charting these forces,
measuring the weights of change, assessing the strengths (and weaknesses),
and mapping directions requires attention to electronic tools and digital
writing practices.
We thus draw from and strive to extend classical and more modern
definitions of rhetoric. It is important for our discipline to define digital rhet-
oric because, as Kathleen Welch (1990: n.p.) notes, “rhetoric, including the
composition of texts in all media, has the capacity to make people conscious
of the unprecedented power of print and electronic texts as systems of com-
munication and of indoctrination.” Digital rhetoric also shifts the productive
• t he exploration of the dynamics of an argument through the use of digital
elements, such as interactive hyperlinks, visuals, and audio files;
• t he use of digital technology to enhance a reader/audience/user’s
comprehension of a message;
• t he art of informing, persuading, and inspiring action in an audience through
digital media;
• t he ways that reading and writing practices and the dynamics between writers
and readers change when text and other elements move online;
• a conscious awareness of the fact that choices to incorporate or exclude
different digital elements affect the message, and experimentation with ways to
improve the effect; and
• t he analysis of the details of a digitally formed piece of information, such as
the use of space, the color scheme, and the interactive elements in order to
understand how to improve an argument or message.
Digital also refers to our fingers, our digits, one of the primary ways (along with
our eyes and sight) through which we make sense of the world and with which we
write into the world. All writing is digital, digitalis in Latin — which means “of or
relating to the fingers or toes” or “a coding of information.” Given this, we should
be reminded of writing known to us though history that was executed with the use
of fingers and codes — f rom the Mesopotamian Cuneiform, to the Egyptian and
242 pedagogy
Mayan hieroglyphs, to the Chinese logograms, to the Aztec codices. It is these
writings that provided the first artifacts of scientific and technological developments,
hence the origins of technical communication, visual rhetoric, and digital rhetoric.
These writings should be studied further to better understand the evolution and
complexity of digital rhetoric and to re-vision and revise our notion of digital
rhetoric as a “new” mode of communication.
24 4 pedagogy
they’re working on, or asking what might feel like an off-the-wall question.
Physical comfort plays an important part in this ease of sharing, and the use
of physical and virtual space is crucial in developing a sense of community.
As important to students as the academic and nonacademic com-
munities to which they belong is their interaction with mentors within those
communities. We use “mentors” in this instance in a broader sense than it is
usually employed; while traditional mentors are usually experienced partici-
pants in a particular discipline who work closely with one or more novice par-
ticipants in order to guide their entry into a field, in this instance mentors are
those individuals who provide inspiration or support, regardless of whether
those students ever interact with them personally. These mentors could be, of
course, digital rhetoric faculty at the student’s institution, more experienced
students within the classroom, theorists within the field of digital rhetoric
whose work resonates with students, and digital rhetoric practitioners whose
work serves as an example for students to imitate or draw inspiration from.
• engage students not only in the technical (how-to) aspects of work with digital
communication and composition media and technologies, but also with the
critical analysis of that media;
• e ncourage students to explore different computer and communication
technologies so that they may choose the best technology to facilitate their
writing and the rhetorical situation to which they are responding;
• e ncourage students to practice composing, revising, and editing (through and
with text, graphics, sound, still and moving images) using computers and
communication technologies to improve their skills as writers;
• p romote the understanding of both writing and technology as complex, socially
situated, and political tools through which humans act and make meaning;
• e ncourage students to recognize that composing takes place within, is shaped
by, and serves to shape social, educational, and political contexts;
• a ddress the rhetorical complications and implications of paper-based and
digitally mediated texts to enhance the critical dimensions of students’ thinking
and writing; and
• r ecognize that the rhetorical dimensions of the spaces in which students write
complicate the rhetorical purposes for which students write, including the
arguments embedded within and expressed through the pull-down menus and
formatting options of software, for example, and within the dynamics of virtual
spaces, where students negotiate e-mail discussion lists, instant messages,
Web pages, and other compositions.
246 pedagogy
and to continually resituate notions of audience, purpose, and mode for
each new digital task. These principles provide the framework, for instance,
to encourage students to dig deep underneath digital compositions, a cru-
cial critical skill. Students often come into our classrooms and approach
tasks with an eye trained in treating text as prominent and all other aspects
as invisible or unimportant. These critical principles encourage students
to look beyond and underneath the text presented by a given digital work
(either alphabetically or orally or even visually) to the method and details of
presentation as a location of argumentation, both as they analyze works and
as they construct them. Transitions, appeals to a particular genre, and other
aspects that students may know to consider rhetorically when working with
traditional (for example, “solely” alphabetic text) works can be more slippery
when it comes to transitions within video, appeals made with a particular
Web genre, use of color and font, and so on.
In sum, we use “critical engagement” here to refer to two concepts:
the development of an understanding of the rhetorical complexities inherent
in the use of digital technologies, and an understanding of how digital tech-
nologies can change both the ways users approach tasks and the ways they
see the world.
forms of literacy have cultural life spans . . . literacies accumulate rapidly . . .
when a culture is undergoing a particularly dramatic or radical transition.
[Thus] . . . humans value and practice both past and present forms of literacy
that exist simultaneously. Hence, in our contemporary culture, one making a
complicated and messy transition from the conditions characterizing modernism to
the conditions characterizing postmodernism — a long with the related transitions
from a print-based culture to a digitally based culture, from a verbal culture to a
visual or multimodal culture, from a national culture to a global culture — multiple
literacies were accumulating and competing; and they continue to do so. (18)
How do we answer Hawisher and Selfe’s call for new pedagogies that facil-
itate our students’ “messy transition” to a multimodal culture while still
acknowledging their current individual, culturally situated literacies? We
posit that we do so by returning to our students’ needs in the digital writing
24 8 pedagogy
classroom — that is, the need for community, the need for critical engagement,
and the need for practical application. Consequently, we offer the following
general recommendations for teaching (and learning) digital rhetoric, as well
as more specific curricular activities for developing community, engaging
critical approaches, and fostering practical application. Many of the sug-
gestions that we collected from our Digital Rhetoric class focused on basic
principles of student-centered pedagogy: provide structured assignments that
are nevertheless open to students’ interests and needs; make room in the cur-
riculum for exploration and experimentation; provide an environment con-
ducive to engaging in both analysis and production of digital media (although
chocolate and stuffed animals aren’t, strictly speaking, mandatory).
The pedagogical framework that we have constructed based on our
assessment of student needs is not new in the sense of a radical revision of
pedagogical practice, but it is new in its emphasis on the digital context as
a specific location of rhetorical praxis. Our model is complementary, for
instance, with the New London Group’s (2000: 33 – 36) pedagogy of multi-
literacies, which suggests that instructors should engage students in situated
practice (real-world examples and work that is relevant to their lives and
work), overt instruction, and critical framing in order to produce transformed
practice. We have focused, however, not on the instructional framework (what
instructors should do for or to students), but on the ways that students’ needs
are met when they are engaging in the analytical and productive practices of
digital rhetoric.
We suggest beginning a course on digital rhetoric with definitions:
“digital rhetoric” as a concept is both complex and nebulous, and it lends
itself to a very wide range of media and activities. Therefore, the first step is
determining both a theoretical and practical framework for examining digital
work. The act of defining is a necessity we described above, and it is an act
of setting boundaries. Discussion of elements and practices that should be
included or excluded in a collaborative definition provides a rich opening for
students to become invested in the class and invested in contributing to cir-
culating notions of what digital rhetoric is. Digital rhetoricians must explore
both theory and technology; critical engagement alone is just as insufficient
as a curricular approach as would be practical application without the provi-
sion of tools for understanding how digital technologies work within social
and cultural contexts.
A digital rhetoric course should provide a framework to connect the
multitude of textual and verbal communication skills with computer-based
publications, to assist in continually resituating individual and collective
Fostering Community
Digital rhetoricians exploring notions of digitally mediated community need
to have opportunities to observe communities at work, but they also should
be encouraged to develop projects that support or engage in community
building as a practice.
Online ethnographies are one method of observing digital com-
munities: Students may be asked to observe and report on particular dis-
course communities enacted via e-mail lists, discussion forums, or news-
groups — groups they can actually join if joining supports their goals and
needs. Students can also examine and explore the blogosphere to determine
whether it constitutes a digital community (or communities). 5 The Web sites
of people who belong to a specific discourse community may also provide a
mechanism for exploring digital community: in our class, for example, we
looked at the Web sites of academics whose work would be considered digital
rhetoric (some of whom lay claim to the title of “technorhetoricians”), pri-
marily with an eye to critiquing the interplay between their published work
25 0 pedagogy
and the online representations of their digital identities (and the disconnects
between the two).
Students could also be asked to craft technology community maps,
a mapping of cultural layers or planes that affect their access to and use of
technologies and how and when those planes intersect and/or collide. To
begin this mapping, students could ask themselves: To which communities
do I belong? How has each separate community affected my access and use
of technology? How might I describe my technological proficiency in relation
to each of these communities? Writing a final reflective piece about dispari-
ties and similarities between and among communities might further engage
students in thinking about how they have come to interact with technology.
Students should be encouraged to take on projects in support of par-
ticular communities, such as the development of Web sites and digital media
for local or regional nonprofit organizations. Chad O’Neil, a member of the
course, offers the following three-part assignment to move students from
thinking about community from an outside perspective to exploring com-
munity as an ethnographic project:
Engaging Critically
Barbara B. Duffelmeyer (2002: 357 – 58) argues that “while we adopt more
nuanced and complicated stances toward technology as scholars and practi-
tioners, we must as teachers help our students achieve this balanced perspec-
tive as well” (357 – 58). Duffelmeyer continues to argue that we currently do
not necessarily do so — that is, while we may see technology from a critical
perspective, we don’t often enough work to equip students with the skills
252 pedagogy
to find and analyze an advertisement, critically examining its use of markers
of race, culture, gender, or sexual identity; using an image-editing program,
students are then instructed to create a parody of the ad that highlights the
elements they have analyzed and critiqued. The source could be a print or
digital ad that is manipulated in an image-editing program, a radio ad that
is remixed with digital audio software, or a television ad that is recreated or
reedited with digital video-editing software. A reflection on the choices they
made both when deciding what elements to critique and what methods they
used to produce the final product is the final element of this assignment. This
particular assignment engages digital rhetoric as both analysis and practice;
in the traditional advertisement analysis, there is no complementary produc-
tive activity, thus reinforcing students’ role as consumers rather than provid-
ing the opportunities for them to become producers (which is a key benefit of
a digital rhetoric–based pedagogy).
Each of the aforementioned assignments strives to promote a critical
pedagogy — a pedagogy, according to Duffelmeyer, that provides “an occasion
for students to reflect on and articulate their relationship to digital technology,
the forces that influenced the formation of that relationship, and the ways that
they might develop some agency within the parameters of that relationship,
thus opening the way for them to develop the more complicated and mature
positioning relative to technology that computers-and-composition scholars
advocate . . . [as] digital technology’s seemingly commonsense assumptions
need to be acknowledged and explored, not unproblematically accepted or
rejected” (358).7
25 4 pedagogy
helps to curb the urge to “master” technologies by affording students some
sense of agency to determine which technologies are best suited for them to
do the work they must do as students and professionals, and not simply and
blindly accepting the industry standard or job posting software skill speci-
fications. Thus, we should facilitate transferable digital skills, not isolated
software skills and drill exercises, but contextualized, digital technē.
Practical application assignments can, as noted, be included as inte-
gral elements in assignments that address the development of critical engage-
ment or the practices of community exploration and building; indeed, many
of the assignments we suggest here combine elements of all three frameworks
for teaching and learning digital rhetoric.
Conclusions
Technologies change continuously. Media evolve. Networks emerge, die,
expand, and contract. As Mary Hocks (2005) recently put it at a talk delivered
at Michigan State University, one of the primary frustrations of research-
ing digital rhetoric is that “technology is always already over.” Disciplines,
likewise, are living entities. Writing and other meaning-making practices
certainly change shape due to the ebbs and flows of cultural events, historical
happenings, economic shifts, and with the rise and adoption of information
and communication technologies. This dynamic movement serves to remind
us how powerful, potent, and important it is for us to analyze deeply the tech-
nological moment and the digital practices that emerge.
The New London Group (2000: 36) reminded us that not only do we
have to chart the waters of these changes, but also that “classroom teaching
and curriculum have to engage with students’ own experiences and dis-
courses.” The group continued to discuss the ways in which cultural and
linguistic diversity shape student experience. Add writing technologies to the
mix, and we have an exciting space of potential and possibility for us to map,
together, our notions of digital rhetoric and our approaches for navigating the
contemporary currents of how meaning is made within and across dynamic,
computer-mediated, networked spaces.
Works Cited
American Library Association. 2000. “Informational Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education.” www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/
informationliteracycompetency.htm.
Anson, Chris M. 1999. “Distant Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology.”
College English 61: 261 – 79.
Besser, Howard. 2001. “The Next Digital Divides.” Teaching to Change LA. www.tcla
.gseis.ucla.edu/divide/politics/besser.html.
Bolter, Jay David. 2001. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25 6 pedagogy
Brandt, Deborah. 2001. Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). 2004. “CCCC Position
Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments.”
www.ncte.org/groups/cccc/positions/115775.htm.
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the
Design of Social Futures. New York: Routledge.
Cushman, Ellen. 1998. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner
City Community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Delpit, Lisa. 2004. Multicultural and Multilingual Literacy and Language: Contexts and
Practices. New York: Guilford.
DeVoss, Danielle N., and Cynthia L. Selfe. 2001. “ ‘This Page Is under Construction’:
Reading Women Shaping On-line Identities.” Pedagogy 2: 31 – 48.
Duffelmeyer, Barbara B. 2002. “Critical Work in First-Year Composition: Computers,
Pedagogy, and Research.” Pedagogy 2: 357 – 74.
Faigley, Lester. 1997. “Literacy after the Revolution.” College Composition and
Communication 48: 30 – 4 3.
Feenberg, Andrew. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fishman, Andrea. 1988. Amish Literacy: What and How It Means. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gates, Bill. 1999. “Everyone, Anytime, Anywhere: The Next Step for Technology
Is Universal Access.” Forbes Magazine. www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/
10 – 4 forbes.mspx.
Gee, James Paul. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grabill, Jeffrey T. 1998. “Utopic Visions, the Technopoor, and Public Access: Writing
Technologies in a Community Literacy Program.” Computers and Composition 15:
297 – 315.
—— . 2003a. “Community Computing and Citizen Productivity.” Computers and
—
Composition 20: 131 – 50.
—— . 2003b. “On Divides and Interfaces: Access, Class, and Computers.” Computers and
—
Composition 20: 455 – 72.
Grabill, Jeffrey T., and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss. 2001. “What Is New Media?” Unpublished
manuscript.
Grabill, Jeffrey T., and Troy Hicks. 2005. “Multiliteracies Meet Methods: The Case for
Digital Writing in English Education.” English Education 37: 301 – 11.
Gurak, Laura. 2001. Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Gurak, Laura, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman.
“Into the Blogosphere.” blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere (accessed 24 September 2004).
Haas, Christina. 1999. “On the Relationship between Old and New Technologies.”
Computers and Composition 16: 209 – 28.
Handa, Carolyn. 2001. “Letter from the Guest Editor: Digital Rhetoric, Literacy,
Computers, and Composition.” Computers and Composition 18: 1 – 10.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities
and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25 8 pedagogy
Street, Brian. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ulmer, Gregory L. 2003. Internet Invention: From Literacy to Electracy. New York:
Longman.
Wardrip-Fruin, Noah, and Nick Montfort, eds. 2003. The New Media Reader. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. 2004. “Respond Now! E-mail, Acceleration, and a Pedagogy of
Patience.” Pedagogy 4: 365 – 83. muse.jhu.edu/journals/pedagogy/v004/4.3weinstock
.html.
Welch, Kathleen. 1990. “Electrifying Classical Rhetoric: Ancient Media, Modern
Technology, and Contemporary Composition.” JAC 10.1. jac.gsu.edu/jac/10/Articles/
2.htm.
Writing in Digital Environments Research Center (WIDE). 2005. “Why Teach Digital
Writing?” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 10.1. english
.ttu.edu/kairos/10.1/binder2.html?coverWeb/wide/index.html.
Wysocki, Anne F. 1998. “Monitoring Order: Visual Desire, the Organization of Web Pages,
and Teaching the Rules of Design.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and
Pedagogy 3.2. english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.2/binder.html?features/wysocki/mOrder0
.html.
—
—— . 2001. “Impossibly Distinct: On Form/Content and Word/Image in Two Pieces of
Computer-Based Interactive Multimedia.” Computers and Composition 18: 137 – 62.
Wysocki, Anne F., and Johndan Johnson-Eilola. 1999. “Blinded by the Letter: Why Are
We Using Literacy as a Metaphor for Everything Else?” In Passions, Pedagogies,
and Twenty-First Century Technologies, ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe,
349 – 68. Logan: Utah State University Press.